About your Search

20121101
20121130
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7 (some duplicates have been removed)
, congressman from california. they both gave thifr interpretations. peter king said petraeus said he didn't know who are on when the cia intelligence talking points were edited, and shift said that petraeus said that the reason they were edited was to protect classified information. now, i talked to a former cia counterintelligence official today who said that both of those aassessessments can't rea live in the same word, so maybe there's some misinterpretation of what petraeus said. you can't believe on the one hand petraeus didn't know why the talking points were edited and on the other he had a perfectly good explanation for why the points were edited. make we'll get more on that. i think that we have a deeper understanding here after today about why david petraeus so badly want upped to come out and set the record straight. he didn't want on record that cia intelligence was bad and that was the reason. so that "wall street journal" report we saw yesterday talking about petraeus in his final days at the cia really wanting to come out and talk publicly. we have a greater sense of why th
and california in the last 24 hours that shows obama losing nine to ten points even more than that in connecticut off of his 2008 performance and that would represent a pretty substantial decline that's greater than that elsewhere in the country. in terms of the hurricane it's hard to say. i'm not sure about what areas are affected. the atlantic coast of new jersey is not in a democratic area. staten island will vote for romney. suffolk county, new york is divided. i don't know how much turnout will fall on the city of new york. if i want does it would make a difference. >> democrats are contesting on the shore, there's talk maybe the republican areas hardest hit there. i want to ask you another thing about the battleground. i took a look this morning and it seems there's basically a fire wall here that obama has on tuesday that involves three states, ohio, wisconsin, and nevada. if romney won basically everything else that's up for grabs in not these three states he would be short of 270. he would have 267. if you look at the clear averages in these three states these are persistent leads. ohio,
are encouraging shoppers to shop local. they created the night burbank, california to boost sales by staying open late. make sure to support your local retailers on november 24th for the third annual small business saturday. for more watch "your business" on sunday mornings at 7:30 on msnbc. >>> the candidates are streaking through the country today trying to hit up as many toss-up states as possible. the president has already been to wisconsin and will hold events in ohio and iowa before the night is through. mitt romney is through florida and is on his way to his second stop in virginia. romney has an event planned for ohio later today before his final rally in new hampshire tonight with special guest kid rock. we spent the last week or so giving you states to watch for tomorrow night. saturday we broke down iowa. today we zero in on a state with very different concerns, nevada. it, too, has six electoral votes up for grabs, but unlike iowa nevada is racked by the housing market and has the highest unemployment in the nation. why does the president hold a slim lead in the silver state? let's pu
those. california reformed its three strikes law which had sent millions of monoviol nonviolent users to jails for decades. it's dawning on voters, judges cops, politicians that imprisoning people doesn't work. after all the billions spent and the millions of arrests and incarcerated people, drugs remain cheap, potent and easily purchased and the financial and spiritual cost of imprisoning more people than any other nation in the world is not sustainable. our next guest wrote a great new york magazine cover story about the future of the war on druks titled "the truce on drugs." we can only hope. benjamin wallace wells, ho aw a you, sir? >> i'm great. >> i'm thrilled by the movement away from prohibition. not because i want to get high. not because there's people who want to get high and can't because it's illegal, that's certainly not the case. but because it does not work when we treat marijuana differently from alcohol. is that correct? >> i think that is correct. one of the things you've seen just in the last five years is a movement of the position that the war on drugs has failed
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7 (some duplicates have been removed)